(talk page stalker) You would be unable to use pictures from the official state site, as they are copyright, and per WP:NFCC if a free image can be used, you can't use a copyright image. Try www.flickr.com for images, noting they must be one of the acceptable licenses at WP:FLICKR. Oh, and as he pointed out, I'm working on Davenport, Iowa and can be of assistance to any questions. you have, RifeIdeas.

Asking them for an image sounds like a good idea, but you'll have to specify that the image be released either into the public domain or by the CC-BY-SA license, though. Simply "for Wikipedia" doesn't work because all Wikipedia content can be used elsewhere by other sites. If you want to learn more about referencing, these two templates come in VERY handy - {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. That way you don't have to worry about formatting, you just plug the information into the parameters and it formats it for you. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 02:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-25T02:54:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-10-25T02:54:00.000Z-RifeIdeas-2010-10-24T15:49:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Since I'm already in edit mode, Philosopher, what do you think of pages like Iowa Senate elections, 2010 and Iowa House of Representative elections, 2010? CTJF83 chat 16:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-24T16:00:00.000Z","author":"Ctjf83","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ctjf83-2010-10-24T16:00:00.000Z-RifeIdeas-2010-10-24T15:49:00.000Z","replies":["c-Philosopher-2010-10-25T02:54:00.000Z-Ctjf83-2010-10-24T16:00:00.000Z"]}}-->

I noticed that they hadn't been created yet (whoops! I should have made sure those were created a while ago!) - they're on my to do list to make some time in the next week or so. But if you wanted to go ahead and do it, that's fine too. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 02:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-25T02:54:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-10-25T02:54:00.000Z-Ctjf83-2010-10-24T16:00:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Being new at this I did not know that someone had made pages for the Iowa House of Representatives elections, 2006 and Iowa House of Representatives elections, 2008 until today. Otherwise I may of used them for my sourcing. Looking at them I am sure that there was a typo in the 2006 House page under the heading of House Composition. The boxes were reading Iowa Senate: pre election and Iowa Senate: post election and should of read House instead of Senate. Looking at the editing I seen it was an easy fix so I changed them inserted House for Senate. I hope this was okay and that just House was okay instead of House of Representatives.

Looking at the two sites I would say that the 2006 site is much easier to read although I seen a formatting problem with the Total votes area of each district. On the 2008 Elections page I have a harder time discerning between the different districts and can see problems with visually challenged users (like me) seeing the breaks between districts, maybe some kind of outline between the districts (a note this format is very similar to ctjf83 example you pasted on the Iowa/gov talk page). Just a though If we can come up with a standardized way of making these same templates usable on both the Main results page and individual representatives and senators pages it would be easier to just copy and paste from here on out.

I apologize for being (off topic) on the WT:IOWA/G#Vote count formats in articles. page about the committees but at least I learned about the changes in committees from you. I have been going by and will continue to use those of record from the official Iowa General Assembly site.RifeIdeas Talk 23:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-12T23:12:00.000Z","author":"RifeIdeas","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-RifeIdeas-2010-11-12T23:12:00.000Z-WikiProject_Iowa_*_*_*_Iowa_House_Senators_and_Representatives_*_*_*","replies":["c-Philosopher-2010-11-13T01:48:00.000Z-RifeIdeas-2010-11-12T23:12:00.000Z"]}}-->

It was a right forum to discuss it in, don't worry. It's good if the discussion occasionally occurs in a more "formal" forum instead of just on our talk pages (which is why I put the election temmplate discussion there - I don't know anyone else is watching it, but if they are, they'll be able to join the discussion). With regard to the committees, I believe the one from the official site reflects the committee assignments as of the end of the members' terms, and with the current members it represents an almost-up-to-date version. A good source, imho. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 01:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-13T01:48:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-11-13T01:48:00.000Z-RifeIdeas-2010-11-12T23:12:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ctjf83-2010-11-13T03:03:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-13T01:48:00.000Z","c-Ctjf83-2010-11-13T03:04:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-13T01:48:00.000Z"]}}-->

I also agree 2006 is easier to read. 2008 has a color overload, and it is semi-hard to straight across and see for sure which district a candidate is in. Perhaps for the 2006 we could bold or put an (I) for the incumbent? CTJF83 chat 03:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-13T03:03:00.000Z","author":"Ctjf83","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ctjf83-2010-11-13T03:03:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-13T01:48:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Oh, I see the * now...might not be as easy to notice as we'd like. CTJF83 chat 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-13T03:04:00.000Z","author":"Ctjf83","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ctjf83-2010-11-13T03:04:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-13T01:48:00.000Z","replies":["c-RifeIdeas-2010-11-13T12:14:00.000Z-Ctjf83-2010-11-13T03:04:00.000Z"]}}-->

IMHO we should come up with a well thought out way of using voting results that can be used for both the Iowa House of Representatives elections, 2010 and for individual Representatives pages and then back track and rework both the 2006 and 2008 pages (Senators also and possibly earlier years).RifeIdeas Talk 12:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-13T12:14:00.000Z","author":"RifeIdeas","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-RifeIdeas-2010-11-13T12:14:00.000Z-Ctjf83-2010-11-13T03:04:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi Philosopher. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:History short, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 23#MediaWiki:History short. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-24T06:49:00.000Z","author":"Cunard","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cunard-2010-10-24T06:49:00.000Z-Wikipedia:Deletion_review\/Log\/2010_October_23#MediaWiki:History_short","replies":["c-Philosopher-2010-10-25T03:01:00.000Z-Cunard-2010-10-24T06:49:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thanks for letting me know! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 03:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-25T03:01:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-10-25T03:01:00.000Z-Cunard-2010-10-24T06:49:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:

- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml

- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf

- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/

- …

clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. BestAlexander468 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-30T16:41:00.000Z","author":"Alexander468","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alexander468-2010-10-30T16:41:00.000Z-Conflict_in_Article_of_Andre_Geim,_winner_of_2010_Nobel_Prize","replies":["c-Philosopher-2010-10-31T19:28:00.000Z-Alexander468-2010-10-30T16:41:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you, but they seem to be discussing these issues already at the talk page - Talk:Andre Geim - that would be the best place to pursue this. If you still believe it needs outside editor and/or admin input, you can report the page to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-31T19:28:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-10-31T19:28:00.000Z-Alexander468-2010-10-30T16:41:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

OK. Sorry. A little OCD there. I am glad I caught the vandalism on Tom Rielly's page most of all. [email protected] (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-03T16:17:00.000Z","author":"[email protected]","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"[email protected]:17:00.000Z-Iowa_politicians","replies":["c-Philosopher-2010-11-03T19:42:[email protected]:17:00.000Z"]}}-->

Indeed, thanks for going after the vandalism, though I think you may have missed a spot. ;-) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-03T19:42:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-11-03T19:42:[email protected]:17:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

This will be our friend for a while...how do you wanna go about updating all the election results, new house/senate totals, etc, etc. CTJF83 chat 20:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-03T20:55:00.000Z","author":"Ctjf83","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ctjf83-2010-11-03T20:55:00.000Z-That_time_again.....","replies":["c-Philosopher-2010-11-05T14:31:00.000Z-Ctjf83-2010-11-03T20:55:00.000Z"]}}-->

Sorry, RL has got me at the moment, I've got a big test tomorrow. Can I get back to you Saturday evening/Sunday evening? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-05T14:31:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-11-05T14:31:00.000Z-Ctjf83-2010-11-03T20:55:00.000Z","replies":["c-Philosopher-2010-11-05T15:33:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-05T14:31:00.000Z"]}}-->

Another thing - I don't know how to handle vote counts right now. It is my impression that there are a few elections where the result isn't certain, but I don't know if that's because votes are still being counted or because recounts are going on. If the former, we can go ahead and just update the recounted districts later; if the latter, we may want to hold off until final vote counts are available. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-05T15:33:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-11-05T15:33:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-05T14:31:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ctjf83-2010-11-06T19:45:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-05T15:33:00.000Z"]}}-->

Ok, the SOS website says unofficial vote. I think if it is a blowout, we can go ahead and do it, and update it later, but I guess 2 Senate seats are too close to call, I'm hearing, so we should wait on those...or we can wait for all official results. Good luck on the test! CTJF83 chat 19:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-06T19:45:00.000Z","author":"Ctjf83","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ctjf83-2010-11-06T19:45:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-05T15:33:00.000Z","replies":["c-Philosopher-2010-11-12T14:39:00.000Z-Ctjf83-2010-11-06T19:45:00.000Z"]}}-->

Looks like RifeIdeas is already doing this. Good for him - I've been busy for the last few days, though I'll get into it soon too. In the meantime, I'm starting a discussion over at WT:IOWA/G on the formats we record vote counts in articles in. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-12T14:39:00.000Z","author":"Philosopher","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Philosopher-2010-11-12T14:39:00.000Z-Ctjf83-2010-11-06T19:45:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ctjf83-2010-11-12T23:52:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-12T14:39:00.000Z"]}}-->

Ok, I'll get on adding some eventually. CTJF83 chat 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-12T23:52:00.000Z","author":"Ctjf83","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Ctjf83-2010-11-12T23:52:00.000Z-Philosopher-2010-11-12T14:39:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-11-11T21:32:00.000Z","author":"SuggestBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SuggestBot-2010-11-11T21:32:00.000Z-Articles_you_might_like_to_edit,_from_SuggestBot_5","replies":[]}}-->

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-09-01T00:06:00.000Z","author":"JJMC89 bot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JJMC89_bot-2020-09-01T00:06:00.000Z-Pending_suspension_of_administrative_permissions_due_to_inactivity","replies":[]}}-->

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
• HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
• Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-09-01T19:52:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2020-09-01T19:52:00.000Z-WikiCup_2020_September_newsletter","replies":[]}}-->

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-09-24T00:00:00.000Z","author":"JJMC89 bot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JJMC89_bot-2020-09-24T00:00:00.000Z-Imminent_suspension_of_administrative_permissions_due_to_inactivity","replies":[]}}-->

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-10-01T00:51:00.000Z","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Xaosflux-2020-10-01T00:51:00.000Z-Suspension_of_administrative_permissions_due_to_inactivity","replies":[]}}-->

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-11-03T11:38:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2020-11-03T11:38:00.000Z-WikiCup_2020_November_newsletter","replies":[]}}-->